Published: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 at 6:34 p.m.

Last Modified: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 at 6:34 p.m.

Susan Chapman has always intended to honor and obey Florida's Sunshine Law as faithfully as any elected official, if not more so, she firmly insists.

“I don't believe the Sunshine Law is wrong,” she told me, clarifying words she had spoken to a Herald-Tribune reporter.

And I believe her. Really.

But as Florida judges have said in cases involving other people's violations, even sincere good intentions don't make a violation go away. So I'm surprised at the first-term Sarasota city commissioner's adamant claim that she did not violate the law, and about her notion that the city ought not settle a lawsuit that claims otherwise.

City officials should fight, Chapman said, to show they will not knuckle under to petty and picky legal actions. She especially means those filed by lawyer Andrea Mogensen and paralegal Michael Barfield, who have made a name for themselves dogging local elected officials all over Florida about possible open-government violations.

Well, makes sense to fight when Mogensen and Barfield are wrong, or very well might be. They win some and lose some.

But this lawsuit charges that Chapman and Commissioner Suzanne Atwell violated the law when they both went to a private breakfast meeting at a downtown restaurant with the city manager, some downtown business people and some police officers.

And — or so as I was going to say — the discussion there was about possible responses to problems involving homeless people, especially those who chronically loiter downtown.

But wait. Chapman just urged me not to use the word “discussion.” They did not discuss, she insisted.

You see, an out-of-the-sunshine discussion of city business, with commissioners present or participating at a get-together that was not advertised, would be a violation. So, though they met and just about everyone spoke about the same topic, including Chapman, they were not discussing, she says.

What were they doing?

They were “presenting,” Chapman told me.

See the difference?

Well, maybe not. But still, Chapman, who is a lawyer, almost had me convinced there is an out for her if, in court, her side could sell that distinction. She quoted a Powerpoint explanation, roughly paraphrased from a Sunshine Law expert's talk, that seems to tell commissioners they can be together at some public events such as forums and speaking engagements.

That summation might be a shaky source of legal guidance for Chapman, however. That breakfast thing was no public forum or speech. It was more like a behind-the-scenes huddle, the kind where special interests focused on a city business issue try to steer commissioners to see things their way, all while out of the limelight.

Don't forget, chronically scruffy loiterers are often seen as a bane of the business community, and some merchants just might be focused not on helping them, but rather on how the city might drive them out of town, or at least out of sight, while pretending to help.

Barfield sent me copies of court decisions that seem to make a strong case that a breakfast meeting on such a topic was a clear-cut violation. He said he sees nothing murky about this.

“It's a no-brainer,” Barfield said.

The cheap settlement his side is offering seems like a good deal. The key requirement is that the city agrees not to do it again.

Only problem for me is, if the case is settled out of court, Chapman can go on claiming it is a wimpy decision that unfairly throws her under the bus when there was really no violation.

She is already saying that. City Attorney Bob Fournier's advice to the commission regarding complaints from Mogensen and Barfield has been so prone toward knuckling under, Chapman says, that it is no wonder the city is targeted so much. The county's greater willingness to fight has paid off over there, she said. The city should adopt the same attitude.

Well, yes, in situations where a lawsuit's claims are wrong, or likely might be. Fighting is the right thing to do then.

But in this case?

Well, I never went to law school, so what do I know? And really, I'd enjoy seeing this one hashed out in court. Might be a waste of tax dollars on a bad gamble, but I'd still like to hear what a judge would say about Chapman's argument that they were presenting, not discussing, so it was fine to exclude the public.

But that would look a lot like the bad old days when commissioners met routinely with influential others to work out deals in secret, so that some public meetings became a show where they pretended to deliberate things that already were a done deal — settled before the public had a clue.

Was Chapman intending that? Heck no. No one ever is. All politicians now believe fully in transparency, and they love public input unreservedly. Just ask them.

But that being so, it kind of makes sense to agree that commissioners won't get together at any more unadvertised, exclusive meetings, no matter if city biz is discussed, or merely presented, or just acted out by mimes.

<p>Susan Chapman has always intended to honor and obey Florida's Sunshine Law as faithfully as any elected official, if not more so, she firmly insists.</p><p>“I don't believe the Sunshine Law is wrong,” she told me, clarifying words she had spoken to a Herald-Tribune reporter.</p><p>And I believe her. Really.</p><p>But as Florida judges have said in cases involving other people's violations, even sincere good intentions don't make a violation go away. So I'm surprised at the first-term Sarasota city commissioner's adamant claim that she did not violate the law, and about her notion that the city ought not settle a lawsuit that claims otherwise.</p><p>City officials should fight, Chapman said, to show they will not knuckle under to petty and picky legal actions. She especially means those filed by lawyer Andrea Mogensen and paralegal Michael Barfield, who have made a name for themselves dogging local elected officials all over Florida about possible open-government violations.</p><p>Well, makes sense to fight when Mogensen and Barfield are wrong, or very well might be. They win some and lose some.</p><p>But this lawsuit charges that Chapman and Commissioner Suzanne Atwell violated the law when they both went to a private breakfast meeting at a downtown restaurant with the city manager, some downtown business people and some police officers.</p><p>And — or so as I was going to say — the discussion there was about possible responses to problems involving homeless people, especially those who chronically loiter downtown. </p><p>But wait. Chapman just urged me not to use the word “discussion.” They did not discuss, she insisted.</p><p>You see, an out-of-the-sunshine discussion of city business, with commissioners present or participating at a get-together that was not advertised, would be a violation. So, though they met and just about everyone spoke about the same topic, including Chapman, they were not discussing, she says.</p><p>What were they doing?</p><p>They were “presenting,” Chapman told me.</p><p>See the difference?</p><p>Well, maybe not. But still, Chapman, who is a lawyer, almost had me convinced there is an out for her if, in court, her side could sell that distinction. She quoted a Powerpoint explanation, roughly paraphrased from a Sunshine Law expert's talk, that seems to tell commissioners they can be together at some public events such as forums and speaking engagements.</p><p>That summation might be a shaky source of legal guidance for Chapman, however. That breakfast thing was no public forum or speech. It was more like a behind-the-scenes huddle, the kind where special interests focused on a city business issue try to steer commissioners to see things their way, all while out of the limelight.</p><p>Don't forget, chronically scruffy loiterers are often seen as a bane of the business community, and some merchants just might be focused not on helping them, but rather on how the city might drive them out of town, or at least out of sight, while pretending to help.</p><p>Barfield sent me copies of court decisions that seem to make a strong case that a breakfast meeting on such a topic was a clear-cut violation. He said he sees nothing murky about this.</p><p>“It's a no-brainer,” Barfield said.</p><p>The cheap settlement his side is offering seems like a good deal. The key requirement is that the city agrees not to do it again.</p><p>Only problem for me is, if the case is settled out of court, Chapman can go on claiming it is a wimpy decision that unfairly throws her under the bus when there was really no violation.</p><p>She is already saying that. City Attorney Bob Fournier's advice to the commission regarding complaints from Mogensen and Barfield has been so prone toward knuckling under, Chapman says, that it is no wonder the city is targeted so much. The county's greater willingness to fight has paid off over there, she said. The city should adopt the same attitude.</p><p>Well, yes, in situations where a lawsuit's claims are wrong, or likely might be. Fighting is the right thing to do then. </p><p>But in this case?</p><p>Well, I never went to law school, so what do I know? And really, I'd enjoy seeing this one hashed out in court. Might be a waste of tax dollars on a bad gamble, but I'd still like to hear what a judge would say about Chapman's argument that they were presenting, not discussing, so it was fine to exclude the public.</p><p>But that would look a lot like the bad old days when commissioners met routinely with influential others to work out deals in secret, so that some public meetings became a show where they pretended to deliberate things that already were a done deal — settled before the public had a clue.</p><p>Was Chapman intending that? Heck no. No one ever is. All politicians now believe fully in transparency, and they love public input unreservedly. Just ask them.</p><p>But that being so, it kind of makes sense to agree that commissioners won't get together at any more unadvertised, exclusive meetings, no matter if city biz is discussed, or merely presented, or just acted out by mimes.</p>